City of Woburn v. Busa
Opinion
Both parties have approached and argued this case as if it had grown out of the procedural matrix of G. L. c. 143, § 8 (as most recently amended by St. 1972, c. 802, § 24), which, in a city, requires the convocation of a board consisting of the city engineer, the head of the fire department and a disinterested person if the owner of an unsafe structure refuses to comply with the requirements set forth in a notice from the building inspector to make such structure safe or to remove it. Section 8 requires the board to conduct a “careful survey of the premises” and to submit a written report, a copy of which is to be served on the owner. In reality, this is an action to abate a nuisance brought under the first clause of G. L. c. 143, § 12 (as most recently amended by St. 1972, c. 802, § 27), which is entirely independent of G. L. c. 143, § 8. See Medford v. DiFilippo, 347 Mass. 327, 330 (1964). The judge, like the parties, proceeded on the erroneous assumption that § 8 was applicable in the circumstances. It was not, and all evidence of the contents of the letters should have been excluded.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
403 N.E.2d 422 (City of Woburn v. Busa) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.